Is there any simple way to define critical section?
when a user during the updating some database table, I'd force to make the other user cannot update on the same tables.
django-concurrency is an optimistic lock 1 implementation for
Django.
Tested with: 1.4.x, 1.5.x, 1.6.x, 1.7.x 1.8.x.
It prevents users from doing concurrent editing in Django both from UI
and from a django command.
I never used, but i think this can solve your problem.
django-concurrency
It depends what are your queries, Your single query to the database will never face any race condition due to ACID principle impose by the database. But if there is any condition like first you are reading the data from database and after some operation on application level you are writing the updated data back to the database, then race condition may occur for that you have to implement the locks or the mutex in python.
Related
So I am right now developing a backend API using GraphQL and either Python with SQLAlchemy or Node.js with Sequelize to write all the data into a SQLite database.
I am still not sure what backend I will end up with. Maybe this question and the answer to my question will lead me to using one or the other.
So my app will have a function where you add dart throws (like double 20, triple 19, ...) into a table with throws. Depending on the game chosen and the conditions chosen this throw will either substract from a total count or maybe be added into a counter table or something like that.
Everytime a throw gets added there will be a check if the game is won and some other checks as well. Those might also write (commit) data to the database.
Now, if the user types in the wrong number / or the automatic darts machine will discover the wrong throw number (malfunction) there is a throw and several changed data in the database which I will have to rollback.
In darts scorer apps you will find in the app store either ios or android you always will have a undo button which will erase the throw from the database and all the "effects" caused by entering the wrong throw.
As a former mssql administrator my first idea was transactional logs and rollback function. But after searching the net for a while I understand both SQLAlchemy and Sequelize will rollback transactions only on exception.
Can I purposely rollback the last "complete" transaction (meaning all changes which for example a function will make by the end of the function) by hitting a button / calling a rest api path like '/undo' and if so are there any code snippets for either SQLAlchemy or Sequelize I am missing?
Best regards,
Patrick
edit:
collection of provided answers:
command pattern (python)
According to Can I rollback a transaction I've already committed? (data loss) and other sources, no, you cannot rollback a committed transaction. Also this is DB dependent, so doesn't have to do much with ORM or language.
I would recommend to implement the Command pattern, which is great for Undo. So basically do the revert from code, not from the database.
I'm new to Flask and web development in general. I have a Flask web-application that is using SQLAlchemy, is it ok to put session.rollback at the beginning of the app in order to keep it running even after a transaction fails?
I had a problem with my website when it stopped working after I was attempting to delete records of one table. The error log showed that the deletion failed due to entries in another table still referencing these records as their foreign key. The error log suggested using session.rollback to rollback this change, so I put it at the beginning of my app just after binding my database and creating the session and my website worked. This gave me the hint to leave that line there. Is my move right, safe and ok? Can anyone tell me what is the correct thing to do if this is somewhat endangering the functionality or logic of my website by any chance?
I'd say by that you are by definition cargo cult coding and should try to determine why you're finding these errors in the first place instead of just including a bit of code for a reason you don't understand.
The problem you're describing is the result of using foreign keys to ensure data integrity in your database. Typically SQLAlchemy will nullify all of the depending foreign keys, but since I don't know anything about your set up I can't explain why it wasn't. It is perhaps a difference between databases.
One massive problem with putting the rollback at the beginning of a route (or the entire global app) is that you might rollback data which you didn't want to. You haven't provided an MVCE so no one can really help you debug your problem.
Cargo cult coding in circumstances like this is understandable, but it's never a good practice. To solve this problem, investigate the cascades in SQLAlchemy. Also, fire up your actual SQL db interface and look at the data's structure, and set SQLALCHEMY_ECHO = 1 in your config file to see what's actually getting emitted.
Good luck!
You should not use the rollback at the beginning but when a database operation fails.
The error is due to an integrity condition in your database. Some rows in your table are being referenced by another table. So, you have to remove referencing rows first.
Some devices are asynchronously storing values on a common remote MySQL database server.
I would like to write a supervisor app in Python (and possibly SQLAlchemy) to recognize the external INSERT events on the database and act upon the last rows' data. This is to avoid a long manual test to see if every table is being updated regularly or a logger crashed.
Can somebody just tell me where to search online this kind of info and, even better, an example?
EDIT
I already read all tables periodically using a datetime primary key ({date_time}), loading the last row of each table, and comparing to the previous values:
SELECT * FROM table ORDER BY date_time DESC LIMIT 1
but it looks very cumbersome and doesn't guarantee that I don't lose some rows between successive database checks.
The engine is an old version of INNODB that I cannot upgrade: I cannot use the UPDATE field in schema because it simply doesn't work.
To reword my question:
How to listen any database event with a daemon-like Python application (sleeping thread) and wake up only when something happens?
I want also to avoid SQL triggers because this would be just too heavy to manage: tables are in hundreds and they are added/removed very often according to the active loggers.
I gave a look to SQLAlchemy but all reference I could find, if I don't misunderstood it, are decorators to act on INSERTs made by SQLAlchemy's itself. I didn't find anything about external changes to the database.
About the example request: I am not interested in a copy-and-paste, because first I want to understand how stuff works. I prefer (even incomplete) examples because SQLAlchemy documentation is far too deep for my knowledge and I simply cannot put the pieces together.
I have a django model, TestModel, over an SQL database.
Whenever I do
TestModel.objects.all()
I seem to be getting the same results if I run it multiple times from the same process. I tested that by manually deleting (without using ANY of the django primitives) a line from the table the model is constructed on, the query still returns the same results, even though obviously there should be less objects after the delete.
Is there a caching mechanism of some sort and django is not going to the database every time I want to retrieve the objects?
If there is, is there a way I could still force django to go to the database on each query, preferably without writing raw SQL queries?
I should also specify that by restarting the process the model once again returns the correct objects, I don't see the deleted ones anymore, but if I delete some more the issue occurs again.
This is because your database isolation level is repeatable read. In a django shell all requests are enclosed in a single transaction.
Edited
You can try in your shell:
from django.db import transaction
with transaction.autocommit():
t = TestModel.objects.all()
...
Sounds like a db transaction issue. If you're keeping a shell session open while you separately go into the database itself and modify data, the transaction that's open in the shell won't see the changes because of isolation. You'll need to exit and reload the shell to get a new transaction before you can see them.
Note that in production, transactions are tied to the request/response cycle so this won't be a significant issue.
I'm starting a Django project and need to shard multiple tables that are likely to all be of too many rows. I've looked through threads here and elsewhere, and followed the Django multi-db documentation, but am still not sure how that all stitches together. My models have relationships that would be broken by sharding, so it seems like the options are to either drop the foreign keys of forgo sharding the respective models.
For argument's sake, consider the classic Authot, Publisher and Book scenario, but throw in book copies and users that can own them. Say books and users had to be sharded. How would you approach that? A user may own a copy of a book that's not in the same database.
In general, what are the best practices you have used for routing and the sharding itself? Did you use Django database routers, manually selected a database inside commands based on your sharding logic, or overridden some parts of the ORM to achive that?
I'm using PostgreSQL on Ubuntu, if it matters.
Many thanks.
In the past I've done something similar using Postgresql Table Partitioning, however this merely splits a table up in the same DB. This is helpful in reducing table search time. This is also nice because you don't need to modify your django code much. (Make sure you perform queries with the fields you're using for constraints).
But it's not sharding.
If you haven't seen it yet, you should check out Sharding Postgres with Instagram.
I agree with #DanielRoseman. Also, how many is too many rows. If you are careful with indexing, you can handle a lot of rows with no performance problems. Keep your indexed values small (ints). I've got tables in excess of 400 million rows that produce sub-second responses even when joining with other many million row tables.
It might make more sense to break user up into multiple tables so that the user object has a core of commonly used things and then the "profile" info lives elsewhere (std Django setup). Copies would be a small table referencing books which has the bulk of the data. Considering how much ram you can put into a DB server these days, sharding before you have too seems wrong.